User talk:Kodia/Archive 1
Welcome Hello and welcome to the Wikia! felinoel ~ (Talk) 05:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC) :Thanks for the welcome. I find myself absurdly curious about this show. But since I don't have a television, I have to rely on Hulu to watch it.--Kodia 13:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC) ::Well at least you can watch it whenever you want, I have to resort to recording. felinoel ~ (Talk) 15:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC) :::Not just whenever I want, unfortunately. They only have 5 episodes active at any given time right now.--Kodia 04:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC) ::::Ah, I see... wait, aren't there only 5 episodes? felinoel ~ (Talk) 06:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC) :::::Just checked an Burnout makes six of them, lol, I was one off. felinoel ~ (Talk) 06:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Just in case Just in case you missed my response, see here. I was going to ask Wikia people on IRC, but inside help would be preferred. felinoel ~ (Talk) 01:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC) :So... I guess I should go ask for help in IRC? felinoel ~ (Talk) 00:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC) ::If you're in a hurry, then yes. I've not yet had a chance to look at it, unfortunately.--Kodia 00:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC) :::Well, the other pages I had the inuse thing on you removed the inuse template, so I figured you were in a hurry... felinoel ~ (Talk) 06:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC) ::::In all the wikis I work on, an "in use" template is for "I'm doing this right now" types of editing. They're used for active, current editing, not placeholders for "I must remember to work on these later" which it seemed they were being used for. I removed them out of habit. My apologies if this isn't what you intended. I think they should only be used for active editing so they don't get forgotten, which they have a tendency to do.--Kodia 12:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC) :::::Well, I was working on them, just that I was doing it all at once, I like doing multiple things at once, but my computer crashed with all the info I was working on so it doesn't matter now. felinoel ~ (Talk) 16:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC) James Braid's Chair and Default Artifact Page I think we should keep the categories and such in every article page the same to induce order, I like your changing of About the Source, to Background, but I am not sure of the other changes, maybe change the Default page around a bit first? felinoel ~ (Talk) 16:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC) :Possibly, and I understand your hesitance. Change for the sake of change alone is not useful and often detrimental. I thought a great deal about the default page categories, to be honest, and ultimately decided not to use them as is. I believe that it artificially changes how we have to write about an object and thus makes the writing weaker. I think the default page is useful for initial object identification, and in fact quite powerful for that reason alone. However, as the series progresses and further meanings and nuances are discovered, I believe those same powerful headings could ultimately restrict what someone wants to write. Summary: I think we should always always always start with the default page, but stating that it should always stay that way is foolish and counter productive to a healthy and thriving wiki.--Kodia 17:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC) ::But I said you should change it to how you felt worked best... and since as the show goes on different things may affect how the pages should be, this page can still be changed, it can always be changed, I just think that when the default page gets changed all the other artifact pages should follow in its change eventually. I am not saying the default page has to remain the same, I am just saying that I believe all artifacts should have similar to each other structures, not meaning those structures must stay the same forever. felinoel ~ (Talk) 20:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Claudia I agree with your reason, but next time you want to do that, please save the data by moving it to a different page or something. felinoel ~ (Talk) 04:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC) :That was a late-hour mistake on my part. My apologies. I came back to correct it this morning, but was already done. Please assume good faith. I'm not the complete putz you may think I am.--Kodia 12:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC) ::xD No no, it is no problem, I didn't not assume good faith, I have seen much worse things that make the bad faith qualifications. felinoel ~ (Talk) 18:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Differing styles Hm... So not to come off as rude or anything, but it does seem like you and I have a differing writing style. While the wiki I originate from encourages the different writing styles, as long as they are grammatically correct, I'm not getting that feel here... a period is just as good as a semi-colon, for example, and subjective clauses can be at the beginning or the end of a sentence. Not to come off as a possessive nutcase, but I need to know if things like that will happen a lot in this wiki before I get too involved. -- Axi 01:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC) :Actually your punctuation and grammar were just fine! I didn't change it because I disagreed with the way it was written at all. What I was trying to do was follow the basic item format. That is, the first sentence or two without a header has a basic (sometimes *very* basic) description of the item, with not a lot of detail. The rest of the item's article goes into more detail. If I'd left the first sentence of the Usage header as is, without changing it, it would have appeared as if there were two sentences virtually repeating themselves. I was trying to smooth the way between the short introductory description and the longer description at the beginning of the kettle. It wasn't in any way meant as a criticism of your writing.--Kodia 02:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC) ::Okay--thanks. I just wanted to check. I've been on a wiki that people did that before and I can't work there anymore. I do this to relax from real life. I shall attempt to keep that "header/detail" relationship in mind with the next artifact article I tackle. Thank you for explain it to me. Is there a template/style guide somewhere that I could refer too? -- Axi 02:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC) :::You're welcome. As for a template, no, not just yet because of how new the wiki is, to be honest. There's a default page that felinoel has been using, but nothing agreed to by consensus of what few editors are here so far.--Kodia 02:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC) ::::Too true I hope that we can come to an agreement for a single default page as it would be extremely useful for both new artifacts and new users. felinoel ~ (Talk) 03:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Re: Template:Info Ummm, why do we need a second template that states the article is unfinished and needs more info? felinoel ~ (Talk) 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC) :The Info template is really more for *very* specific references or information that is missing, when you know what's missing. It wouldn't be used for a whole article that might use the Stub template, but for an article that already had a good base it might be used for some information that you knew existed but couldn't find or didn't have access to. For example, say that I remembered that Artie had mentioned the name of Pete's sister in episode one. I was pretty sure of it but I didn't know the name. I could use as a note on Pete's article, which really already has quite a bit of information. A stub template on Pete's page wouldn't be a good idea here because it wouldn't specify that one little missing detail. The info template would be a succinct way to say "This specific info" that would let another writer know what you were thinking in case I couldn't get back to the article right away. But it wouldn't require a long discussion on the talk page.--Kodia 23:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC) ::I see felinoel ~ (Talk) 02:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)